"BEWARE and WARNING!" begins R.A. Montgomery's The Abominable Snowman, book 1 in the recently repackaged Choose Your Own Adventure series you used to know and love. "This book is different from other books. You and YOU ALONE are in charge of what happens in this story. There are dangers, choices, adventures and consequences. YOU must use all of your numerous talents and much of your enormous intelligence. The wrong decision could end in disaster—even death. But, don't despair. At anytime, YOU can go back and make another choice, alter the path of your story, and change its result.... You and your best friend Carlos have traveled to Nepal in search of the fabled Yeti or abominable snowman..."

If you were a kid during the '80s and read any books at all, you probably read at least one Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA), probably by either R.A. Montgomery or Edward Packard. And if you read one, you read more than one. They were addictive, candy for our brains, but also, they empowered us in a way that normal books did not. At key plot points, the reader got to make decisions that actually changed the course of the story. For example: "If you make a hasty retreat to your car, [upon being attacked by a bunch of monkeys] turn to page 29." Alternatively, "If you decide that the chimpanzees are not as dangerous as they look and rush to give aid to the man, turn to page 3." Many of us simply could not choose, or chose both, and so we read them twice, or thrice, or we simply read all of the endings, or we read the whole book with our fingers placed at various points so we could backtrack and try again if things didn't go as hoped. For a lot of us, growing up as we did in our early-computer existences (remember Atari?), this was our first dose of "interactivity."

That doesn't mean that the era of the Choose Your Own Adventure has ended, even if it is some 30 years (egad) after the original series began. One recent example of updated Choose Your Own Adventure-type books is the "What if" series, which began in 2006. They're dubbed "Choose Your Destiny" novels by Random House and written by Liz Ruckdeschel and Sara James. "She's all yours," promises the book cover, of the character, Haley Miller, who starts off in book 1 at 15, the new girl at a New Jersey public high school, where the reader must help her forge her way. By book 8 in the series, it's "Time to send Haley off into the world. Are you ready?"

Even more recently, Nancy Mercado of Roaring Brook Press, a division of Macmillan, purchased North American rights to a new Y.A. series called Most Likely To, by Bridie Clark, the author of Because She Can, a fictionalized account of working for Judith Regan. The first book in the series is slated for Spring 2013 and the second for Winter 2014. "It's the most compulsively readable thing I’ve ever edited," Mercado says. The book is told in the second person, with the nameless main character (You), a scholarship student, learning the ropes at an elite boarding school in New Hampshire. "All these things happen that you have to decide," says Mercado, who confessed her love for the original CYOA books. "You go to a party. Do you leave your dorky guy friend behind or do you take him with you? Sometimes if you make the right choice you get rewarded; you get to meet your dorky guy friend’s cool cousin. It’s kind of wish fulfillment."

The same elements that drew us to CYOA books in the '80s and '90s are at work again here: The ability to live vicariously though a character (an aspect of any novel) is even more actionable than in other fiction because we actually get to make decisions for the characters—assuming the author has written those options in, of course. These decisions have repercussions, often major ones: Some point to a "fixation on death" that appears to run through the original series. There are obviously stakes here—decisions are made; consequences are had.

CYOA-esque books like the What if series and Clark's upcoming books bring us some new female-oriented plot lines about school and dating and social lives (as if informed by, say, Gossip Girl), that the old CYOA books, typically focused on adventure, fantasy, or horror—anything, really, but romance!—didn't offer. But the aspect of making a choice for your character, and seeing it through, is the same. "Whatever you decide, your night changes," says Mercado of Most Likely To. "There’s a really annoying guy in a band who wants to just tell you about his music, do you put up with him or do you see through it and go? You saw someone maybe slip a pill in someone’s drink, do you convince yourself you didn’t see it, or do you address it and be willing to take the fallout?"

Along with reinvigorated plots and new themes, CYOA-type books now have the potential to become digitally interactive, though they're by and large appearing in print as well. Mercado says, "In terms of the e-book, it will be really interesting. I keep harkening back to CYOA, where I never wanted to commit to one path. I always had multiple fingers holding a page, and you just had to make your way through. With e-books, it’s going to be a whole different thing: You can hold your place, you can make a bookmark, you can go back and change your choice." Maybe this is something that young readers have grown to expect. R.A. Montgomery told The Atlantic Wire, "CYOA has less of a novelty factor than it did in the 1980s. Interactive entertainment is pervasive, largely through gaming. Although even Facebook and Twitter could be construed to be a form of it."

Before Twitter and Facebook and the pervasive technology that impacts our lives, there were R.A., or Ray, Montgomery and Edward Packard, credited with originating CYOA. They met in 1976, when Montgomery was running Vermont Crossroads Press; Packard approached him with a manuscript called Sugarcane Island. Montgomery, who had a background in interactive role-playing games published it under the series name, "The Adventures of You," which would later be named "Choose Your Own Adventure" by Bantam. Packard went to another publisher, Lippincott, for his next two books, "Choose Your Own Adventure in the Wild West" and "Choose Your Own Adventure in Outer Space." Montgomery continued with "The Adventures of You" series, writing Adventures Under the Sea under a pen name.

Montgomery told us, "Game theory became a part of my outlook and that transitioned into Choose Your Own Adventure books, which are in essence mini-simulation games with You as the major role profile confronted with many decisions and choices to make." However, he doesn't take all the credit for the idea. He says, "There were many others who lead the way in interactive literature for both adults and kids before Choose started. Raymond Queneau authored a popular play in the late '50s that roughly translates as "Story as You Like It" which allowed the audience to choose the direction and outcome of the play. Julio Cortazar published Hopscotch in 1966, an adult spy mystery that once again allowed you the reader to make the choices about what to read next. The Trackers series for kids was published in London by Penguin in the '70s and was quite popular. And there were others. CYOA was simply in the right place at the right time with lots of ideas."

Packard says, of the books and themes he created, "I proceeded by imagining adventures that I or others would like to take. Often research was required. Themes were typical of what you'd find in the realm of (mostly boys) adventure stories and in science fiction. I never had any trouble thinking of plots." He adds, "Incidentally, as far as I know, and notwithstanding Ray's comments, no previous book or series that antedated my first book, Sugarcane Island, had the same three elements: written in the second person––about you; you make decisions leading to multiple plot lines; and these lead to multiple endings."

The books were a success. Bantam, which later became a division of Random House, acquired the franchise, and between 1979 and 1999 published 184 titles in the original series and almost 100 additional spin-off titles. It's unclear how many are circulating at this point. Per CYOA.com, "Over 250 million books were printed in 38 languages, making Choose Your Own Adventure the fifth best-selling book series of all time. Only Harry Potter, Enid Blyton, and Goosebumps have sold more books."

After Random House abandoned the CYOA trademark, Montgomery registered it, founding Chooseco, a small publisher focused on republishing the original books and also creating new ones. (In a piece on CYOA in Slate in 2011, Grady Hendrix reported, "Packard and Montgomery had a falling out and are no longer on speaking terms, but each continues to fly the interactive-fiction flag.") As for that 250 million figure, they disagree as well: Packard says it's "wildly inflated" and he'd guess 40 million of the classics are out there, while Chooseco Publisher Shannon Gilligan told The Atlantic Wire that since that number came out, there've been another 5 million put in print, so it's more like 255 million, along with being published in 43 languages in the past 30 years.

Packard is now working on an adult novel and told the Wire he's not interested in writing more interactive books in the CYOA-genre. Over the past few years, however, he's revised, expanded, and adapted three of his orignal CYOA books for release as U-Ventures apps at the iTunes store. "Of course there's a lot you can do in this format that you can't do in a printed book," he says. "There is no limit to the number of pages, so in a scene where you are swimming, trying to get to shore, you can keep swiping pages and you only encounter more scenes of the sea. Your frustration and uncertainty mimic what you'd feel in reality. In one scene you have to make a repair on our spaceship and the computer says there will be a catastrophic failure in 20 seconds. The reader has to solve the problem in real time: The countdown of time remaining is shown on the screen. We have light and sound effects. The computer remembers where you've been, which can affect what you know and what happens when you reach a certain locale and if and when you come back to it." (Simon & Schuster have been releasing print versions of the apps since March.)

Gilligan and Montgomery, however, are keeping primarily to print. "It took a while for us to figure out why digital editions made the interactive reading experience worse. It has something mysterious to do with tactile involvement in making choices as 'You the hero...'" says Gilligan. However, they are rolling out books in some technologically advanced formats: "We have just adapted one of the books for younger readers, Your Very Own Robot, as an interactive cartoon meant to be played on a tablet. We are also in the process of slowly rolling out the books on eReaders in a way that we think finally works. CYOA on the early generations of Kindle was not a beautiful thing." They continue to publish traditionally as their main business, however, and during a 2007 relaunch of old titles put forward some new books as well. "The interest and passion for the interactive paradigm seems undimmed," says Gilligan. "People love being at the center of the story making decisions. Obviously tons of adults who grew up on them are buying them for their own children. As for new themes, does a zombie title count?"

But the formula and plot lines of the old CYOAs are not just fodder for nostalgia. Of course there's nostalgia, enough for Jonah Peretti to create a Choose-Your-Own Adventure Twitter thread back in 2010. But a look back at some of the books reminds us, also, of the power they gave us as kids, to make some unprecedented choices, for once in our young lives! Also, they were plain and simple kind of awesome, fast-paced reads. Take the opening to House of Danger:

It is a Tuesday afternoon in late June. You are on your way down to your lab in your parents' basement when the phone rings. You dash into the lab and pick it up.

"I need, I need..." says a weak voice. You hear a loud click, and the phone goes dead.

Most Popular

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer.

Five days after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, its devastating impact is becoming clearer. Most of the U.S. territory currently has no electricity or running water, fewer than 250 of the island’s 1,600 cellphone towers are operational, and damaged ports, roads, and airports are slowing the arrival and transport of aid. Communication has been severely limited and some remote towns are only now being contacted. Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, told the Associated Press that Hurricane Maria has set the island back decades.

A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes.

There were six hours during the night of April 10, 2014, when the entire population of Washington State had no 911 service. People who called for help got a busy signal. One Seattle woman dialed 911 at least 37 times while a stranger was trying to break into her house. When he finally crawled into her living room through a window, she picked up a kitchen knife. The man fled.

The 911 outage, at the time the largest ever reported, was traced to software running on a server in Englewood, Colorado. Operated by a systems provider named Intrado, the server kept a running counter of how many calls it had routed to 911 dispatchers around the country. Intrado programmers had set a threshold for how high the counter could go. They picked a number in the millions.

The greatest threats to free speech in America come from the state, not from activists on college campuses.

The American left is waging war on free speech. That’s the consensus from center-left to far right; even Nazis and white supremacists seek to wave the First Amendment like a bloody shirt. But the greatest contemporary threat to free speech comes not from antifa radicals or campus leftists, but from a president prepared to use the power and authority of government to chill or suppress controversial speech, and the political movement that put him in office, and now applauds and extends his efforts.

The most frequently cited examples of the left-wing war on free speech are the protests against right-wing speakers that occur on elite college campuses, some of which have turned violent.New York’s Jonathan Chait has described the protests as a “war on the liberal mind” and the “manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism—less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.” Most right-wing critiques fail to make such ideological distinctions, and are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.

A growing body of research debunks the idea that school quality is the main determinant of economic mobility.

One of the most commonly taught stories American schoolchildren learn is that of Ragged Dick, Horatio Alger’s 19th-century tale of a poor, ambitious teenaged boy in New York City who works hard and eventually secures himself a respectable, middle-class life. This “rags to riches” tale embodies one of America’s most sacred narratives: that no matter who you are, what your parents do, or where you grow up, with enough education and hard work, you too can rise the economic ladder.

A body of research has since emerged to challenge this national story, casting the United States not as a meritocracy but as a country where castes are reinforced by factors like the race of one’s childhood neighbors and how unequally income is distributed throughout society. One such study was published in 2014, by a team of economists led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty. After analyzing federal income tax records for millions of Americans, and studying, for the first time, the direct relationship between a child’s earnings and that of their parents, they determined that the chances of a child growing up at the bottom of the national income distribution to ever one day reach the top actually varies greatly by geography. For example, they found that a poor child raised in San Jose, or Salt Lake City, has a much greater chance of reaching the top than a poor child raised in Baltimore, or Charlotte. They couldn’t say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference. Their conclusion: America is land of opportunity for some. For others, much less so.

One hundred years ago, a retail giant that shipped millions of products by mail moved swiftly into the brick-and-mortar business, changing it forever. Is that happening again?

Amazon comes to conquer brick-and-mortar retail, not to bury it. In the last two years, the company has opened 11 physical bookstores. This summer, it bought Whole Foods and its 400 grocery locations. And last week, the company announced a partnership with Kohl’s to allow returns at the physical retailer’s stores.

Why is Amazon looking more and more like an old-fashioned retailer? The company’s do-it-all corporate strategy adheres to a familiar playbook—that of Sears, Roebuck & Company. Sears might seem like a zombie today, but it’s easy to forget how transformative the company was exactly 100 years ago, when it, too, was capitalizing on a mail-to-consumer business to establish a physical retail presence.

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17.

National Geographic Magazine has opened its annual photo contest for 2017, with the deadline for submissions coming up on November 17. The Grand Prize Winner will receive $10,000 (USD), publication in National Geographic Magazine and a feature on National Geographic’s Instagram account. The folks at National Geographic were, once more, kind enough to let me choose among the contest entries so far for display here. The captions below were written by the individual photographers, and lightly edited for style.

What the Trump administration has been threatening is not a “preemptive strike.”

Donald Trump lies so frequently and so brazenly that it’s easy to forget that there are political untruths he did not invent. Sometimes, he builds on falsehoods that predated his election, and that enjoy currency among the very institutions that generally restrain his power.

That’s the case in the debate over North Korea. On Monday, The New York Timesdeclared that “the United States has repeatedly suggested in recent months” that it “could threaten pre-emptive military action” against North Korea. On Sunday, The Washington Post—after asking Americans whether they would “support or oppose the U.S. bombing North Korean military targets” in order “to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons”—announced that “Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike.” Citing the Post’s findings, The New York Times the same day reported that Americans are “deeply opposed to the kind of pre-emptive military strike” that Trump “has seemed eager to threaten.”

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy sparred with Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on CNN hours after their bill dismantling Obamacare appeared to collapse.

Ordinarily, you debate to stave off defeat. But for Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy on Monday night, the defeat came first.

By the time the two GOP senators stepped on CNN’s stage Monday night for a prime-time debate over their health-care proposal, they knew they had already lost.

A few hours earlier, Senator Susan Collins became the third Republican to formally reject the pair’s legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, effectively killing its chances for passage through the Senate this week. Graham and Cassidy had hoped to use the forum to make a closing argument for their plan, and to line it up against Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a single-payer, “Medicare-for-All” health-care system. Instead, the two senators found themselves defending a proposal that was no less hypothetical—and probably much less popular—than Sanders’s supposed liberal fantasy.